https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/charities-take-fight-for-wa-woman-s-1-3-million-will-to-supreme-court-20220617-p5auig.html

On 17/06/2022 7:23 pm, Ozix wrote:
> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/charities-take-fight-for-wa-woman-s-1-3-million-will-to-supreme-court-20220617-p5auig.html
>

When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?

Max the IDIOT puked wrote:
=======================
Ozix wrote:
============
>
> When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
> years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?
>

** The *last* one which clearly indicates the wishes of the deceased.
Can be in any form.

Disputes ( between beneficiaries) are decided by courts on the balance of probability.

...... Phil

On 18/06/2022 2:49 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max the IDIOT puked wrote:
> =======================
> Ozix wrote:
> ============
>>
>> When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
>> years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?
>>
>
> ** The *last* one which clearly indicates the wishes of the deceased.
> Can be in any form.
>
> Disputes ( between beneficiaries) are decided by courts on the balance of probability.
>
>

In the case at hand the woman made hand written notes 10 years after the
formal will. Presumably these notes were not witnessed and signed.

Contrary to what you have said, the legal expert quoted in the article
has said that the formal will (10 years prior to the handwritted notes),
in favour of the Royal Flying Doctors, is likely to take precedence.

Max the IDIOT puked wrote:
=======================
>>
> >> When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
> >> years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?
> >>
> >
> > ** The *last* one which clearly indicates the wishes of the deceased.
> > Can be in any form.
> >
> > Disputes ( between beneficiaries) are decided by courts on the balance of probability.
> >
> >
> In the case at hand the woman made hand written notes 10 years after the
> formal will.

** Not what you asked about.

FOAD.

On 18/06/2022 3:07 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max the IDIOT puked wrote:
> =======================
> >>
>>>> When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
>>>> years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** The *last* one which clearly indicates the wishes of the deceased.
>>> Can be in any form.
>>>
>>> Disputes ( between beneficiaries) are decided by courts on the balance of probability.
>>>
>>>
>> In the case at hand the woman made hand written notes 10 years after the
>> formal will.
>
> ** Not what you asked about.
>

You said:

"The *last* one which clearly indicates the wishes of the deceased.
Can be in any form."

This is what the woman's hand written notes are.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Ozix wrote

>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/charities-take-fight-for-wa-woman-s-1-3-million-will-to-supreme-court-20220617-p5auig.html

> When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter10
> years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?

It is nothing even remotely like that black and white.

On 17-June-22 7:23 pm, Ozix wrote:
> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/charities-take-fight-for-wa-woman-s-1-3-million-will-to-supreme-court-20220617-p5auig.html
>

However it goes, I suspect the combined value of the charities' finances
will drop. One will get the money, and the other will pay the legal fees
for both of them.

Sylvia.

On 18-June-22 2:11 pm, Max wrote:
> On 17/06/2022 7:23 pm, Ozix wrote:
>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/charities-take-fight-for-wa-woman-s-1-3-million-will-to-supreme-court-20220617-p5auig.html
>>
>
> When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
> years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?

It's really not that simple.

The issues regarding the later documents are whether they are genuine,
whether the writer was competent to make a will at that time, and
whether they reflect an intent to give the money to the particular
charity on the writer's death.

If the court finds that all those apply, then the documents are a valid
will.

Sylvia.

Max the IDIOT puked wrote:
=======================
> >>
> >>>> When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
> >>>> years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ** The *last* one which clearly indicates the wishes of the deceased.
> >>> Can be in any form.
> >>>
> >>> Disputes ( between beneficiaries) are decided by courts on the balance of probability.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> In the case at hand the woman made hand written notes 10 years after the
> >> formal will.
> >
> > ** Not what you asked about.
> >
> You said:
>
> "The *last* one which clearly indicates the wishes of the deceased.
> Can be in any form."
>
> This is what the woman's hand written notes are.

** Yet to be proven in court.

FOAD.

Sylvia Else wrote:
==============
>
> > When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
> > years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?
> It's really not that simple.
>
> The issues regarding the later documents are whether they are genuine,
> whether the writer was competent to make a will at that time, and
> whether they reflect an intent to give the money to the particular
> charity on the writer's death.
>
> If the court finds that all those apply, then the documents are a valid
> will.
>

** Correct.

Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is very imminent.
Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.
To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodated.

The benefit of a formal will made with competent legal help is you get the law right cos there are provisions that must be in one's will and things that must not. This done, the will should be be valid.

But as Forrest Gump pronounced - " shit happens".

...... Phil

On 18/06/2022 4:09 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max the IDIOT puked wrote:
> =======================
>>>>
>>>>>> When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
>>>>>> years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** The *last* one which clearly indicates the wishes of the deceased.
>>>>> Can be in any form.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disputes ( between beneficiaries) are decided by courts on the balance of probability.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In the case at hand the woman made hand written notes 10 years after the
>>>> formal will.
>>>
>>> ** Not what you asked about.
>>>
>> You said:
>>
>> "The *last* one which clearly indicates the wishes of the deceased.
>> Can be in any form."
>>
>> This is what the woman's hand written notes are.
>
> ** Yet to be proven in court.
>

It may never make it to court, fuckwit.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Sylvia Else wrote

>> > When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
>> > years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?
>> It's really not that simple.
>>
>> The issues regarding the later documents are whether they are genuine,
>> whether the writer was competent to make a will at that time, and
>> whether they reflect an intent to give the money to the particular
>> charity on the writer's death.
>>
>> If the court finds that all those apply, then the documents are a valid
>> will.

> Correct.

> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
> very imminent.

Bullshit. They are in fact meant to be written so that your
wishes about your estate etc are carried out if you die
without being able to specify that stuff just before your
death or don't see any need to change what you spelt
out years earlier, even if the detail has changed.

> Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.

You are wrong, as always. You are free to cover all
possible eventualitys that are possible in the will.

> To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodated.

Nope, you are free to have a new will drawn up and signed and witnessed.

> The benefit of a formal will made with competent legal help is you get
> the law right cos there are provisions that must be in one's will and
> things that must not. This done, the will should be be valid.

> But as Forrest Gump pronounced - " shit happens".

Not if you organise things properly.

Rod Speed wrote TOTAL BULLSHIT !!!:
==========================

>
> > Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
> > very imminent.
> Bullshit.

* *ROTFL - the tentant is part of BASIC will law.

> > Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.

> You are wrong, as always. You are free to cover all
> possible eventualitys that are possible in the will.

** 10000% irrelevant.
ANY will must cover the situation if you were to die suddenly.
=================================================

> > To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodated.
>
> Nope,

** Yep.

Wot an ILLITERATE FUCKING MORON !!

> > The benefit of a formal will made with competent legal help is you get
> > the law right cos there are provisions that must be in one's will and
> > things that must not. This done, the will should be be valid.
>
> > But as Forrest Gump pronounced - " shit happens".
>
> Not if you organise things properly.

** FUCKING DRIVEL !!

FOAD you vile cunt.

...... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
>> > very imminent.

>> Bullshit.

> ROTFL - the tentant is part of BASIC will law.

BULLSHIT.

>>> Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.

>> You are wrong, as always. You are free to cover all
>> possible eventualitys that are possible in the will.

> 10000% irrelevant.

> ANY will must cover the situation if you were to die suddenly.

They are actually there to cover what happens if you die in any way.

>>> To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodated.

>> Nope,

> Yep.

Nope, dope.

>>> The benefit of a formal will made with competent legal help is you get
>>> the law right cos there are provisions that must be in one's will and
>>> things that must not. This done, the will should be be valid.

>>> But as Forrest Gump pronounced - " shit happens".

>> Not if you organise things properly.

> FUCKING DRIVEL !!

Fact actually.

Rod Speed ex Cop FUCKING MORON LIAR wrote:
=======================================
>
> >>> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
> >> > very imminent.
>
> >> Bullshit.
>
> > ROTFL - the tenet is part of BASIC will law.
>
> BULLSHIT.

** 10,000 % FACT you vile, ILLITERATE fuckwit.

It ain't a legal will it it fails that test.

> >>> Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.
>
> >> You are wrong, as always. You are free to cover all
> >> possible eventualitys that are possible in the will.
>
> > 10,000% irrelevant.
>
> > ANY will must cover the situation if you were to die suddenly.
>
> They are actually there to cover what happens if you die in any way.

** So list every possible way of dying ?

Wot a mentally RETARDED fucking ROBOT !!!

....... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death
>>>>> is very imminent.

>>>> Bullshit.

>>> ROTFL - the tenet is part of BASIC will law.

>> BULLSHIT.

> It ain't a legal will it it fails that test.

BULLSHIT.

>>>>> Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.

>>>> You are wrong, as always. You are free to cover all
>>>> possible eventualitys that are possible in the will.

>>> ANY will must cover the situation if you were to die suddenly.

>> They are actually there to cover what happens if you die in any way.

> So list every possible way of dying ?

Nope, just write it so that it does, fuckwit.

Rod Speed = MASSIVE LIAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
===========================
>
> >>>>> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death
> >>>>> is very imminent.
>
> >>>> Bullshit.
>
> >>> ROTFL - the tenet is part of BASIC will law.
>
> >> BULLSHIT.
>
> > It ain't a legal will it it fails that test.
>
> BULLSHIT.

** Fact.

Fail to provide for the result of dying the next day and the will is cactus.
It's fucking RULE ONE !!!

> >>> ANY will must cover the situation if you were to die suddenly.
>
> >> They are actually there to cover what happens if you die in any way.
>
> > So list every possible way of dying ?
>
> Nope, just write it so that it does, fuckwit.
>

** Which IS exactly MY point.

Wills should all start with " If I die today ...... ".

" Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is very imminent.
Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.
To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodated."

FOAD you stinking pile of dog shit.

...... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> >>>>> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's
>> >>>>> death is very imminent.
>>
>> >>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> >>> ROTFL - the tenet is part of BASIC will law.
>>
>> >> BULLSHIT.
>>
>> > It ain't a legal will it it fails that test.
>>
>> BULLSHIT.
>
> Fact.

BULLSHIT.

> Fail to provide for the result of dying the next day and the will is
> cactus.

Nothing like your original, mindless bullshit.

> It's fucking RULE ONE !!!

Nothing like your original, mindless bullshit.

>> >>> ANY will must cover the situation if you were to die suddenly.
>>
>> >> They are actually there to cover what happens if you die in any way.
>>
>> > So list every possible way of dying ?
>>
>> Nope, just write it so that it does, fuckwit.

> Which IS exactly MY point.

Everyone can see for themselves that your original was mindless bullshit.

> Wills should all start with " If I die today ...... ".

BULLSHIT and almost none ever do.

> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
> very imminent.

BULLSHIT and almost none ever do.

> Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.

Got nothing to dol with HOPE, any viable will should
allow for what might happing in 20 years, like some
of the benefitiarys no longer being alive etc, fuckwit.

> To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodated."

They always are, with a new will, fuckwit.

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:38:07 AM UTC+10, Rod Speed wrote:
> Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> >>>>> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's
> >> >>>>> death is very imminent.
> >>
> >> >>>> Bullshit.
> >>
> >> >>> ROTFL - the tenet is part of BASIC will law.
> >>
> >> >> BULLSHIT.
> >>
> >> > It ain't a legal will it it fails that test.
> >>
> >> BULLSHIT.
> >
> > Fact.
>
> BULLSHIT.
> > Fail to provide for the result of dying the next day and the will is
> > cactus.
> Nothing like your original, mindless bullshit.

** See:

" Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is very imminent.
Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.
To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodate. "

> > It's fucking RULE ONE !!!
> Nothing like your original, mindless bullshit.

See:

"Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is very imminent.
Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.
To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodate. "

> >> >>> ANY will must cover the situation if you were to die suddenly.
> >>
> >> >> They are actually there to cover what happens if you die in any way.
> >>
> >> > So list every possible way of dying ?
> >>
> >> Nope, just write it so that it does, fuckwit.
>>
> > Which IS exactly MY point.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that your original was mindless bullshit.

** See:

" Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is very imminent.
Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.
To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodated. "

> > Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
> > very imminent.
>
> BULLSHIT and almost none ever do.

** So it looks like Rod's does not.

> > Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.
>
> Got nothing to dol with HOPE, any viable will should
> allow for what might happing in 20 years,

** ROTFLAMO !!!

The idea is you ammend the will as circumstances change.
So it a;ways covers what you want to happen in case of sudden death.

...... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > Rod Speed wrote

>> >> >>>>> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's
>> >> >>>>> death is very imminent.
>> >>
>> >> >>>> Bullshit.
>> >>
>> >> >>> ROTFL - the tenet is part of BASIC will law.
>> >>
>> >> >> BULLSHIT.
>> >>
>> >> > It ain't a legal will it it fails that test.
>> >>
>> >> BULLSHIT.
>> >
>> > Fact.
>>
>> BULLSHIT.

>> > Fail to provide for the result of dying the next day and the will is
>> > cactus.

>> Nothing like your original, mindless bullshit.

> See:

> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
> very imminent.

That is nothing like the latest bullshit of yours.

> Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.

That is nothing like the latest bullshit of yours.

> To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodate. "

That is best done with a new will, fuckwit.

>> > It's fucking RULE ONE !!!
>> Nothing like your original, mindless bullshit.
>
> See:

> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
> very imminent.

That is nothing like the latest bullshit of yours.

> Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.

That is nothing like the latest bullshit of yours.

> To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodate. "

That is best done with a new will, fuckwit.

>> >> >>> ANY will must cover the situation if you were to die suddenly.
>> >>
>> >> >> They are actually there to cover what happens if you die in any
>> way.
>> >>
>> >> > So list every possible way of dying ?
>> >>
>> >> Nope, just write it so that it does, fuckwit.
>>>
>> > Which IS exactly MY point.
>>
>> Everyone can see for themselves that your original was mindless
>> bullshit.
>
> See:

> Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
> very imminent.

That is nothing like the latest bullshit of yours.

> Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.

That is nothing like the latest bullshit of yours.

> To this end late and last minute changes of mind must be accommodate. "

That is best done with a new will, fuckwit.

>> > Thing about wills is they are meant to be written as IF one's death is
>> > very imminent.
>>
>> BULLSHIT and almost none ever do.
>
> ** So it looks like Rod's does not.
>
>> > Not some wish list you HOPE happens in 20 years.
>>
>> Got nothing to dol with HOPE, any viable will should
>> allow for what might happing in 20 years,

> The idea is you ammend the will as circumstances change.

That isn't required for the will to be valid, fuckwit.

> So it a;ways covers what you want to happen in case of sudden death.

No reason why that can't be in the original will, fuckwit.

Rod Speed is a Fucking Robot :
==========================

** The ASD fucked idiot has gone into a total meltdown.
Head spinning around, hands waving and saying mad things.

AGAIN !!
=======

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> standing in front of a mirror wrote

> The ASD fucked idiot has gone into a total meltdown.
> Head spinning around, hands waving and saying mad things.

> AGAIN !!
> =======

Yep, you got that description of yourself spot on, for once.

On 18/06/2022 4:00 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 18-June-22 2:11 pm, Max wrote:
>> On 17/06/2022 7:23 pm, Ozix wrote:
>>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/charities-take-fight-for-wa-woman-s-1-3-million-will-to-supreme-court-20220617-p5auig.html
>>>
>>
>> When you have a formal will saying one thing, then a signed letter 10
>> years later saying something else, which one takes precedence?
>
> It's really not that simple.
>
> The issues regarding the later documents are whether they are genuine,
> whether the writer was competent to make a will at that time, and
> whether they reflect an intent to give the money to the particular
> charity on the writer's death.
>
> If the court finds that all those apply, then the documents are a valid
> will.
>

This is from the statement of claim, as quoted in The Australian:

"“The first defendant (Ms O’Connor) alleges that the will was revoked by
the deceased and that certain handwritten notes made between January
2018 and April 2019 embodied the testamentary intentions of the
deceased,” the court document says.

Ms O’Connor “has not sought to prove in solemn form or common form any
testamentary instrument of the deceased”."

What does this mean? Does this mean the defendant is not seeking to
prove any will or equivalent document of the deceased? How will the
defendant have any chance of winning if this is the case?